From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 17:21:57 EDT
Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/16/04, answering Costas: >... But my assumption is that exchange >value is a form of manifestation of value only, so the argument is >if EV, then V >EV exists >Therefore V >which is a pretty normal form of valid argument. ... Howard, Why is the above "valid"? You are still presuming your conclusion, in the most obvious, direct way => "EV exists, therefore V exists"; as in: EV is reality, therefore V is reality. I notice that you haven't answered (or did I miss them?) either the posting by myself or Fred M.'s, both on Jun. 7, concerning theory v. reality. I now offer "if EV, then Xenobiopsy; EV exists, therefore Xenobiopsy exists". Except for its unfamilarity, what wrong with my logic? I believe it is no more better, nor worse, than your own. That is, both are empty of content (neither V or "Xenobiopsy" add one iota to knowledge once EV is known to exist), UNLESS V or "Xenobiopsy" is independently established. Why is this point so hard to understand? Sorry for being a pain in the neck, Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT